Why progressives' stance on replacing Scalia is so hypocritical

Ah, but what about “governing?” you say. It’s important to “govern.” It’s important to “get things done.” Well, rejecting Supreme Court nominees is governing. You may disagree with the Senate Republican caucus about what constitutes a bad Supreme Court nominee, and wish that they would consider confirming Obama’s nominees. But that just means that you disagree with the Senate Republican caucus about who should be on the Supreme Court. This doesn’t mean that the Senate Republican caucus is not “governing.”

The Supreme Court can absolutely function with eight justices, and often has. You don’t need the nine justices to activate their judicial powers. The argument that it would boost the court’s legitimacy to have a seat — and a crucial seat, one that could upset the court’s balance — be, essentially, on the ballot in a general election, is not at all crazy.

Here’s the reality of the issue: The Republicans want one thing, and the Democrats want another. And so they are having a political fight about it. And because this is an issue on which the stakes are extremely high, Republicans are willing to fight very hard. And so are Democrats. And so they are fighting. There’s nothing about that that’s against the Constitution. In fact, it’s the opposite: It’s precisely what the Constitution encourages.